Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Standardize numbering for coins #340

Open
Varunram opened this issue Sep 10, 2018 · 1 comment
Open

Standardize numbering for coins #340

Varunram opened this issue Sep 10, 2018 · 1 comment
Labels
consistency Not a significant change/enhancement but clean up of confusion trivial Simple changes, not requiring extensive testing or inspection

Comments

@Varunram
Copy link
Contributor

Varunram commented Sep 10, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Right now, we use pretty much arbitrary numbers (1,257, 65535), etc. We must have some sort of code / way we handle new alts (eg monotonous increment of numbers based on first alt added, choose your number and wait for consensus, etc). Or we could use SLIP173 types everywhere (however, that'd mean changing the type of CoinType)
@delbonis
Copy link
Collaborator

delbonis commented Sep 10, 2018 •
edited
Loading

I think it is better to use name-based coin types like SLIP173. It would make the UX easier to understand.

@Varunram Varunram mentioned this issue Oct 15, 2018
Open
@delbonis delbonis added enhancement Nontrivial improvements that add/enhance features consistency Not a significant change/enhancement but clean up of confusion trivial Simple changes, not requiring extensive testing or inspection and removed enhancement Nontrivial improvements that add/enhance features labels Nov 7, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
consistency Not a significant change/enhancement but clean up of confusion trivial Simple changes, not requiring extensive testing or inspection
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@Varunram @delbonis